Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Yuri manga and ALC Publishing) makes Publisher's Week

Expand Messages
  • atheniag
    ... so i ... Not to mention the irritating and seemingly endless variations of same. :-) ... It always amazes me that this myth still exists, but then
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 27, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Yuricon@yahoogroups.com, Johann Chua <johannchua@h...> wrote:

      > "Shoujo ai" always seemed to me as being too much trouble to type,
      so i
      > stuck with yuri. ^_^

      Not to mention the irritating and seemingly endless variations of
      same. :-)


      >
      > I keep running across "there's no such thing as porn for women".

      It always amazes me that this myth still exists, but then ignorance
      still exists, so...



      > Lea Hernandez had this story about CLOCKWORK ANGELS (one of _the_ best
      > American yuri comics) being rejected for review by _Romantic Times_ on
      > the basis that it was pornography rather than erotica. Porn being
      > visual, while erotica is written. Never mind what sex scenes in romance
      > novels can be like; I guess they think the flowery language lessens the
      > graphicness.

      There's definitely a sense in American publishing that words are safe,
      while pictures are not. Perhaps because a child can pick up a book
      with explicit sexual scene written and not immediately comprehend,
      while the same scene in pictures is somewhat more obvious.


      >
      > Some folks on the Shoujo ML a few years back thought that yuri was
      > hentai (i.e., porn for guys), therefore f/f in shoujo manga and josei
      > comics wasn't yuri. They also protested the use of yaoi to mean any
      > anime/manga m/m (yaoi is never hentai!), though that could be because I
      > cited two Hiroyuki Utatane H manga stories.

      Basically there are some folks who, despite all evidence to the
      contrary, believe that what women read is romance, period. Even when
      that romance included explicity sex - because it's for women, it can't
      be porn. That sort of circular logic makes no sense to me, but I am
      not one of those people. :-)

      I maintain my definition of porn v. erotica - erotica is when the
      participants/characters are focused on themselves and/or each other.
      Porn is when the participants/characters are implicitly or explicitly
      aware of an observing third party. I don't insist that anyone else use
      my definition, but it works for me.

      Cheers,

      Erica
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.